And each "brand" would differ from its competitors by offering a competing "ethical protocol" for the release of whistle-blowers' documents. For example, a number of potential rivals have criticized wikileaks for
...concentrating on publishing material about the US while other information was neglected.
Assuming that this is the case (although even if it is, t'was not always so), other outlets might specialise in uncovering secrets from other regimes. And thus the free market for secrets will be served.
PS. John Young's website Cryptome is here. His issues with Julian Assange appear to be many and varied, I must say.
PPS. "Ethical Protocol" turns out to be a real word. Weird: I thought I'd just made it up.
7 comments:
It's already begun...
WikiLeaks backlash targets websites
MasterCard, Swiss bank, Swedish prosecutors are focus of retaliation
Boring.
I like how the CRU e-mails were a criminal act but somehow you use both the words "ethical" and "whistleblower" in describing Assange's actions BCL. They were neither.
This release of private, legally protected correspondence was the act of a young disgruntled man. There were no ethics involved. Sadly, that young man faces up to 55 years in prison.
Oh, by the way, I was by the corner store this morning. Loved the photo of Don Cherry and Rob Ford on the cover.
Paul, I in fact agree about the US military info being posted was going too far. However the point is that the method the US is now using to shut down Wikileaks will inevitably be doomed to failure.
They should be; a) trying to find who gave this information to Assange in the first place, and b) take a humility pill and begin to actually work with Assange rather than make a martyr of him.
This heavy-handed action will only serve to create 100 new Assange's to take his place.
Paul, the cognitive dissonance within your post is making my head hurt. First of all, the CRU hack led to widespread MISINFORMATION being distributed, aimed at distorting the truth. Wiki has not mangled anything, they've simply published what they were given, and have stated that they deleted names of people who would have been hurt if they had been revealed.Doesn't sound very evil to me.
Secondly, it appears that a very concerted effort on the part of many governments, but especially the US government, has been made to disrupt Wikileaks and their ability to function. So if I'm reading you correctly you think it's OK if the government indulges in this kind of activity?
As for Ford/Cherry, we'll see who has the last laugh in 4 years time.
Yawwwwn. More boring revelations.
Oh well, maybe Palin's reality show is on the Teevee.
They should be; a) trying to find who gave this information to Assange in the first place . . . - T of KW
Done. Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement and facing 55 years in jail!!
This heavy-handed action will only serve to create 100 new Assange's to take his place. - T of KW
Nobody will take their place because Manning and Assange could both be in jail for a long, long time and progressives are into meaningless gestures, not doing hard time.
I feel sorry for those two guys, I really, really do.
. . . the CRU hack led to widespread MISINFORMATION being distributed, aimed at distorting the truth. - double nickel
LOL.
Wiki has not mangled anything, they've simply published what they were given, and have stated that they deleted names of people who would have been hurt if they had been revealed.
Doesn't matter.
It is neither whistle-blower info nor Assange's or Manning's right to disseminate this information.
The Obama administration is going to come down hard on those foolish guys.
As for Ford/Cherry, we'll see who has the last laugh in 4 years time.
Should be a helluva lot of laughs for the next 4 years if yesterday's swearing in was any indication.
"...Assange could both be in jail for a long, long time..."
You keep saying that. So, what are these charges that you're talking about?
Post a Comment